alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Francis Dent, Resp’t, *v.*Stephen V. Ryan, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court. General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed February 10, 1890.)*

Slander—Bill on particulars.

While a hill oí particulars oí the times and places where the alleged slanderous words are claimed to have been spoken may properly be ordered, the plaintiff should not he required to state the names of the persons in whose presence they are claimed to have been uttered

Appeal from' order denying defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars giving the names of the persons in whose presence the *380slanderous and defamatory words charged in the complaint were uttered.

*Le Boy*Parker, for app’lt; *Francis*Dent, resp’t in person.

Barnard, P. J.

The complaint is for slander. There is no place stated therein where the slander was uttered and there is no time stated other and further than an averment that the utterance was made “ about the 1st of June, 1887, and subsequently at divers times.”

The papers show that an order was made for a more particular statement of the times and places where the slanders were spoken. By the bill furnished under this order no very definite information was given. The words were charged to have been uttered “ about the 1st of June, 1887, in the city of Buffalo; about the end of June, 1887, in the town of Little Yalley, of the county of Cattaraugus, and state of New York; about the beginning of July, 1887, at the city of *Buffalo;*about the middle of November, 1887, in the city of Buffalo; about the beginning of December, 1887, in the city of New York and Brooklyn; on the day of defendant’s return from Europe or the day after, in the spring of 1888, in the city of New York, and about the middle of September, 1888, in the city of New York.”

Another order was made requiring the plaintiff to give a sworn statement of the particular times and places in New York, Buffalo, Brooklyn and Little Yalley, when and where the alleged words were spoken.

The defendant asked that the names of the witnesses be given, and this was denied. The appeal is from this refusal. The refusal was proper. The particular times and places in each of these cities will definitely inform the defendant of the claims of the plaintiff. It would be unjust to compel the plaintiff by a bill of particulars to select such of the witnesses as were present, and abide by their evidence on the trial, for this would be the effect of a bill of particulars which should name the witnesses he intended to cite to support his claim. In *Dwight*v. *Germania Life Insurance*Co., 84 N. Y., 493, the court of appeals seems to imply that a bill of particulars, which called for a disclosure of the evidence, whether oral or written, and the names of the persons who would give the oral testimony, would not be ordered.

The part of the order appealed from should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Pratt, J., concurs; Dykman, J., not sitting.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Norcross Safety Products L.L.C. (the “Registrant”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended July 3, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David F. Myers, Jr., Chief FinancialOfficer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(3)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(4)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
| Dated:   August 11, 2004 | By:    | /s/ David F.  Myers, Jr.                           |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | David F. Myers, Jr.                                |
|                          |   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, |
|                          |   | Secretary and Manager                              |
|                          |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)       |

 

 

**A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and willbe retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.**

 

----
Case: 2:11-cv-00472-GLF-MRA Doc #: 5 Filed: 06/02/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Jarad	Wright

1511	Melody	Ridge	Court	NE Conyers,	GA	30012 To	Whom	It	May	Concern: I	am	requesting	Section	333	Exemption	in	this	petition.	I	am	seeking	use	of	my drone	or	Unmanned	Aerial	Vehicles	(UAVs)	for	commercial	purposes.	I	am	starting	a photography	business	and	would	like	to	utilize	my	drone	for	said	services. I	will	have	a	very detailed	pre

- flight	inspection	and	will	monitor	all	maintenance	and repair	as	needed.	The	DJI	Phantom	3	Professional	remote	operates	at	2.4	GHz. I	am	currently	very	well	aware	of	all	current	regulations	concerning	UAVs	and	will maintain	a	“safety

- first” approach	whenever	I	am	flying	the	drone.	I	also	have	tools in	place	that	will	help	me	stay	current	with	“No	fly	zones”	and	other	information concerning	UAVs	as	they	are	updated. I	intend	to	never	fly	the	drone	over	300	feet or	91	meters.	I	also	intend	to keep	the	drone	in	visible	sight	so	I	don’t	have	any issues	with	other	objects	or	people. I	do	not	plan	on	operating	in	any	proximity	to	airports	unless	otherwise	requested or	given	explicit	permission	by	the	FAA. I	think	the	exemption	here	in	Georgia	wo uld	be	in	the	public	interests,	as	it	would add	another	service	to	the	boosting	Atlanta	economy.	I	feel	Atlanta	and	its surrounding	area,	are	very	behind	when	it	comes	to	new	technology	so	this	would help	raise	awareness. My	goal	is	to	record	events,	wed dings,	and	work	with	services	dealing	with	relief when	using	the	drone.	This	shall	create	timeless	photos,	build	excitement	and	assist in	getting	better	shots	of	projects	that	may	be	hazardous	or	dangerous	to	the	people working	to	fix	them. The	Drone	is	a DJI	Phantom	3	Professional. I	appreciate	you	reading	my	petition	and	I	hope	that	you’re	able	to	grant	me exemption. Thanks,
Jarad	Wright
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

ALEMAYEHU GETACHEW,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-00169

CENTRAL OHIO WORKFORCE JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

INVESTMENT CORPORATION, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORAH MCCANN KING

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed August 6, 2013, JUDGMENT is hereby

entered DISMISSING this action.

Date: August 6, 2013 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-00169-EAS-NMK Doc #: 85 Filed: 08/06/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00762-CV

IN RE Colby Jay THIENPONT and Cheryl M. Broussard, Relators

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 20, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 17, 2023, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Mandamus is an 

extraordinary remedy, available only when relators can show (1) the trial court clearly abused its 

discretion or violated a duty imposed by law; and (2) there is no adequate remedy by way of appeal.

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). After considering the 

petition and the record, this court concludes relators did not show they are entitled to the relief 

sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2022-CI-23588, styled Sheridan Marie Santens v. Colby Jay Thienpont and 

Cheryl M. Broussard, pending in the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Rosie 

Alvarado presiding.
No. 49308.

#### Protest 52571-K of Suen Mark & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The merchandise was assessed and claimed dutiable at the same rates and under the same paragraphs as similar merchandise covered by the decision in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of said cited case the gourmet powder or ve-tsin at bar was found to contain salt and was therefore excluded from paragraph 5 (chemical compounds). The protest was sustained.
**Exhibit 32.1 **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
       In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Independence Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roy T. K. Thung, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

/s/   Roy T. K. Thung 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

August 9, 2004    
 

 **
# C_2007241EN.01000501.xml

| 13.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 October 2007

(2007/C 241/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4173 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 166,51 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4509 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69850 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1145 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6803 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 85,39 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,6490 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5842 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,482 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 250,20 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7029 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7358 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,3411 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,627 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6956 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5720 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3865 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,9888 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8388 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0750 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 301,44 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,5884 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,6475 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3219 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 840,74 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7763 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,865 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,3350 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,510 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4173

JPY

Japanese yen

166,51

DKK

Danish krone

7,4509

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69850

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1145

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6803

ISK

Iceland króna

85,39

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,6490

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5842

CZK

Czech koruna

27,482

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

250,20

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7029

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7358

RON

Romanian leu

3,3411

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,627

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6956

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5720

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3865

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,9888

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8388

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0750

KRW

South Korean won

1 301,44

ZAR

South African rand

9,5884

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,6475

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3219

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 840,74

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7763

PHP

Philippine peso

61,865

RUB

Russian rouble

35,3350

THB

Thai baht

44,510

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8884 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8884

 To require any delivery vehicle owned or leased by the United States 
  Postal Service have a climate control unit, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2024

Mr. Cardenas (for himself and Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require any delivery vehicle owned or leased by the United States 
  Postal Service have a climate control unit, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Peggy Frank Memorial Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING POSTAL SERVICE DELIVERY VEHICLES TO HAVE CLIMATE 
              CONTROL UNITS.

    (a) Current Vehicles.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, any delivery vehicle owned or leased by 
        the United States Postal Service as of that date shall be 
        modified to include a climate control unit.
            (2) Annual report.--The Postmaster General shall submit a 
        progress report to Congress not later than 1 year after the 
        date of enactment of this Act and annually thereafter until the 
        modifications required under this subsection are complete.
    (b) Future Vehicles.--On or after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Postmaster General may not purchase or lease any delivery 
vehicle for use by the United States Postal Service unless that vehicle 
has a climate control unit.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007199EN.01000101.xml

| 25.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/1

---

(2007/C 199/01)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 183, 4.8.2007

OJ C 183, 4.8.2007

Past publications

OJ C 170, 21.7.2007

OJ C 155, 7.7.2007

OJ C 140, 23.6.2007

OJ C 129, 9.6.2007

OJ C 117, 26.5.2007

OJ C 96, 28.4.2007

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 37

 38

 39

 40

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

05/25

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.95 W Meters AGL
Exhibit 32.2    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Independence Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Teresa A. Herbert, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:   (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/ Teresa A. Herbert
Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
Date: August 11, 2008   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   1
<PAGE>

                                     EXHIBIT 1.3

Mr. Paul Heim                                               January 23, 1998
THE HEIM GROUP, INC.
7700 El Camino Real, Suite 200
Rancho La Costa, Ca 92009


Dear Paul:

     Following our various discussions and written communications regarding the
purchase by SYS, a California corporation ("Purchaser") of 100% of the stock of
Ameritech Environmental, Inc., a California corporation ("Seller"), we believe
that all parties to the transaction are in agreement.  We acknowledge that you
are the Seller's broker.

     In your role as the broker, you have been instrumental in providing the
information, financial and otherwise, needed by the Purchaser to evaluate the
transaction.  The Purchaser hereby agrees to pay you the following:

     1. $10,000 at the close of this transaction.

     2.  An additional $18,000  90 days after the close.

     The total of $28,000 shall be payment in full for your services, and shall
satisfy all obligations of both the Purchaser and AEI to you.  By signing this
agreement, you represent that there are no other brokers.  If these terms are
agreeable to you, please sign below.  Consummation of this transaction is
contingent upon Anthony-Taylor Companies, Inc., Eugene Fling, the SYS Board of
Directors and yourself agreeing to the terms of the related agreements and the
understanding that each party shall be responsible for their own legal and
accounting fees.  The Purchaser retains the right to cancel this agreement if it
is not satisfied with the results of its due diligence investigation.

     If you have any questions pertaining to the above, please contact the
undersigned.

                                   Respectfully,

                                   /s/ Robert D. Mowry

                                   Robert D. Mowry
                                   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Accepted:

/s/ Paul Heim                                     Date:  January 23, 1998
----------------------------------------                 -----------------------
Paul Heim
No. 51120.

#### Protests 55970-K, etc., of Wm. Faehndrich, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) 2)4 percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269; and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.
# C_2007140EN.01001102.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2007 — Helga Neumann-Seiwert v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales, intervening party: DocMorris N.V.

(Case C-172/07)

(2007/C 140/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Helga Neumann-Seiwert

Claimant:

Defendants: Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales

Defendants:

Joined party: DocMorris N.V

Joined part

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the provisions concerning freedom of establishment for capital companies (Articles 43 and 48 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a prohibition on foreign ownership of pharmacies, as provided for by Paragraph 2(1)(1) to (4) and (7), the first sentence of Paragraph 7 and the first sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Gesetz über das Apothekenwesen — ApoG — (Law on Pharmacies) of 15 October 1980 (BGBl. I, p. 1993), as amended most recently by Article 34 of the Regulations of 31 October 2006 (BGBl. I, p. 2407)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the provisions concerning freedom of establishment for capital companies (Articles 43 and 48 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a prohibition on foreign ownership of pharmacies, as provided for by Paragraph 2(1)(1) to (4) and (7), the first sentence of Paragraph 7 and the first sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Gesetz über das Apothekenwesen — ApoG — (Law on Pharmacies) of 15 October 1980 (BGBl. I, p. 1993), as amended most recently by Article 34 of the Regulations of 31 October 2006 (BGBl. I, p. 2407)?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
  Having regard in particular to Article 10 EC and to the principle of effectiveness of Community law, is a national authority entitled and obliged to disapply national provisions it regards as contrary to Community law even if there is no clear breach of Community law and it has not been established by the Court of Justice of the European Communities that the relevant provisions are incompatible with Community law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Having regard in particular to Article 10 EC and to the principle of effectiveness of Community law, is a national authority entitled and obliged to disapply national provisions it regards as contrary to Community law even if there is no clear breach of Community law and it has not been established by the Court of Justice of the European Communities that the relevant provisions are incompatible with Community law?

---
exv10w5






Exhibit 10.5




TERMINATION AGREEMENT




     This termination agreement (“Termination Agreement”) terminating the Employment Agreement to
by and between Cinemark, Inc. (the “Company”) and Tandy Mitchell (“Mitchell”) (each, a “Party” and
together, the “Parties”) is dated June 16, 2008.



RECITALS




     WHEREAS, the Company and Mitchell entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated March
12, 2004 (the “Employment Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, Mitchell wishes to voluntarily resign from her position as an Executive Vice
President and Assistant Secretary of the Company and all of its parents and subsidiaries and
terminate the Employment Agreement with the Company;



     WHEREAS, Mitchell and the Company deem it to be in the best interest of the Parties to
mutually terminate the Employment Agreement as of the date above written; and



     NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and
obligations of the Parties contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:



AGREEMENT





	1.	 	Mitchell hereby resigns as an Executive Vice President and Assistant Secretary of the Company
and all of its parents and subsidiaries.






	2.	 	Mitchell hereby and the Company hereby agree that the Employment Agreement is terminated as
of the date hereof and Mitchell hereby agrees to relinquish any rights under the Employment
Agreement.






	3.	 	Upon execution of this Termination Agreement, the Parties agree that the Employment Agreement
has no further force or effect.





[Signature Page Follows]




 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed and
signed as of the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CINEMARK USA, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
Michael Cavalier 	 
	 	 	Michael Cavalier 	 
	 	 	Senior Vice President-General Counsel 	 
	 
	 	TANDY MITCHELL




/s/
Tandy Mitchell

 

Tandy Mitchell